July152012

Meet Sarah Robles. She can lift as much as 570 pounds. In last year's
weightlifting world championships, she bested every other American—both
female and male. Sarah Robles is going to the Olympics in
London this summer. But at home, in the United States, she lives on $400
a month.

Track star Lolo Jones, 29, soccer player Alex Morgan, 22,
and swimmer Natalie Coughlin, 29, are natural television stars with
camera-friendly good looks and slim, muscular figures. But women
weightlifters aren't go-tos when Sports Illustrated is looking for
athletes to model body paint in the swimsuit issue. They don’t
collaborate with Cole Haan on accessories lines and sit next to Anna
Wintour at Fashion Week, like tennis beauty Maria Sharapova. And male
weightlifters often get their sponsorships from supplements or diet
pills, because their buff, ripped bodies align with male beauty ideals.
Men on diet pills want to look like weightlifters — most women would
rather not.

Meanwhile, Robles — whose rigorous training schedule leaves her
little time for outside work — struggles to pay for food. It would be
hard enough for the average person to live off the $400 a month she
receives from U.S.A. Weightlifting, but it’s especially difficult for
someone who consumes 3,000 to 4,000 calories a day, a goal she meets
through several daily servings of grains, meats and vegetables, along
with weekly pizza nights. She also gets discounted groceries from food
banks and donations from her coach, family and friends — or, as Robles
says, “prayers and pity.”

March202012

Evolutionary biologist Michael Eisen made this t-shirt design in support of the Elsevier boycott.

Academic research is behind bars and an online boycott
by 8,209 researchers (and counting) is seeking to set it free…well,
more free than it has been. The boycott targets Elsevier, the publisher
of popular journals like Cell and The Lancet, for its
aggressive business practices, but opposition was electrified by
Elsevier’s backing of a Congressional bill titled the Research Works Act (RWA). Though lesser known than the other high-profile, privacy-related bills SOPA and PIPA, the act was slated to reverse the Open Access Policy
enacted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2008 that granted
the public free access to any article derived from NIH-funded research.
Now, only a month after SOPA and PIPA were defeated thanks to the wave
of online protests, the boycotting researchers can chalk up their first
win: Elsevier has withdrawn its support of the RWA, although the company downplayed the role of the boycott in its decision, and the oversight committee killed it right away.

But the fight for open access is just getting started.

Seem dramatic? Well, here’s a little test. Go to any of the top
academic journals in the world and try to read an article. The full
article, mind you…not just the abstract or the first few paragraphs. Hit
a paywall? Try an article written 20 or 30 years ago in an obscure
journal. Just look up something on PubMed then head to JSTOR where a
vast archive of journals have been digitized for reference. Denied? Not
interested in paying $40 to the publisher to rent the article for a few
days or purchase it for hundreds of dollars either? You’ve just logged
one of the over 150 million failed attempts per year to access an article on JSTOR.
Now consider the fact that the majority of scientific articles in the
U.S., for example, has been funded by government-funded agencies, such
as the National Science Foundation, NIH, Department of Defense,
Department of Energy, NASA, and so on. So while taxpayer money has
fueled this research, publishers charge anyone who wants to actually see
the results for themselves, including the authors of the articles.

Paying a high price for academic journals isn’t anything new, but the
events that unfolded surrounding the RWA was the straw that broke the
camel’s back. It began last December when the RWA was submitted to
Congress. About a month later, Timothy Gowers, a mathematics professor
at Cambridge University, posted
rather innocently to his primarily mathematics-interested audience his
particular problems with Elsevier, citing exorbitant prices and forcing
libraries to purchase journal bundles rather than individual titles. But
clearly, it was Elsevier’s support of the RWA that was his call to
action. Two days later, he launched the boycott of Elsevier at thecostofknowledge.com, calling upon his fellow academics to refuse to work with the publisher in any capacity.

Seemingly right out of Malcolm Gladwell’s book The Tipping Point, researchers started taking a stand in droves. And the boycott of Elsevier continues on, though with less gusto now that the RWA is dead.
It’s important to point out though that the boycott is not aimed at
forcing Elsevier to make the journals free, but protesting the way it
does its business and the fact that it has profits four times larger than related publishers. The Statement of Purpose
for the protest indicates that the specific issues that researchers
have with Elsevier varies, but “…what all the signatories do agree on is
that Elsevier is an exemplar of everything that is wrong with the
current system of commercial publication of mathematics journals.”

The advantages of open access to researchers have been known for some time, but its popularity has struggled.

It’s clear that all forms of print media, including newspapers, magazines, and books, are in a crisis in the digital era (remember Borders closing?).
The modern accepted notion that information should be free has
crippled publishers and many simply waited too long to evolve into new
pay models. When academic journals went digital, they locked up access
behind paywalls or tried to sell individual articles
at ridiculous prices. Academic research is the definition of premium,
timely content and prices reflected an incredibly small customer base
(scientific researchers around the globe) who desperately needed the
content as soon as humanly possible. Hence, prices were set high enough
that libraries with budgets remained the primary customers, until of
course library budgets got slashed, but academics vying for tenure,
grants, relevance, or prestige continued to publish in these same
journals. After all, where else could they turn…that is, besides the Public Library of Science (PLoS) project?

In all fairness, some journals get it. The Open Directory maintains a list of journals that switched
from paywalls to open access or are experimenting with alternative
models. Odds are very high that this list will continue to grow, but how
fast? And more importantly, will the Elsevier boycott empower
researchers to get on-board the open access paradigm, even if it meant
having to reestablish themselves in an entirely new ecosystem of
journals?

As the numbers of dissenting researchers continue to climb, calls for open access to research are translating into new legislation…and the expected opposition.
But let’s hope that some are thinking about breaking free from the
journal model altogether and discovering creative, innovative ways to
get their research findings out there, like e-books or apps that would
make the research compelling and interactive. Isn’t it about time
researchers took back control of their work?

If you are passionate about the issue of open access to research,
you’ll want to grab a cup of coffee and nestle in for this Research
Without Borders video from Columbia University, which really captures
the challenge of transition from the old publishing model to the new
digital world: